Spells: Channeling Fix

[blueknight]

I die all day on my enchanter when i get an extra mob or two I wasn't expecting and can't even get an aoe stun off half the time due to interrupt. My enchanter's entire build is based on AC to increase my chance of recovering from a mistake. What azxten is proposing sounds like it will just make it to where my deaths are 100% rather than 60% in those scenarios, and I'd probably just stop using that character altogether except for raid buffs (I certainly would stop trying to acquire AC gear like Bucker of Insight and instead go for the mana build Essence of Nature to be a buff bot). This eliminates interesting caster builds like AC builds, making casters a little more one-note and boring. A lot of people enjoy the subtle mechanics of the game and enjoy theory crafting specific purpose builds. Don't 'fix' something that isn't broken I say.

[Rygar]

Fix what isn't broken? Dev response literally said the system you are using isn't classic (i.e. broken) and was just conjured into being based on best guesses at the time. The client decompile for in era will make it as accurate as possible to classic.

Fear not neckbeards, P99 players have always adapted and will continue to do so. Worst case you need to duo certain content in a "massive multiplayer game", not the end of the world, just a good opportunity to make a friend (or eat a boxing ban)

[PatChapp]

Originally Posted by blueknight [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I die all day on my enchanter when i get an extra mob or two I wasn't expecting and can't even get an aoe stun off half the time due to interrupt. My enchanter's entire build is based on AC to increase my chance of recovering from a mistake. What azxten is proposing sounds like it will just make it to where my deaths are 100% rather than 60% in those scenarios, and I'd probably just stop using that character altogether except for raid buffs (I certainly would stop trying to acquire AC gear like Bucker of Insight and instead go for the mana build Essence of Nature to be a buff bot). This eliminates interesting caster builds like AC builds, making casters a little more one-note and boring. A lot of people enjoy the subtle mechanics of the game and enjoy theory crafting specific purpose builds. Don't 'fix' something that isn't broken I say.

I assume your level enc is lvl 60 going by the tone of your post,so im wondering where are you fighting that your dieing 60% of the time on charm breaks?
I think the only zone where that might happen is sirens,otherwise maybe your reaction time/spell loadout is the issue. Seb/chardok/pom your death rate should be pretty low really.

[sammoHung]

I have died on my 60 necro with AC build to a hasted, torched level 44 pet. It's uncommon but not rare. Sometimes you just get chain interrupted and can't get a single cast off. It's extremely frustrating to watch a mob chew through 2300 HP while every single cast attempt gets interrupted. Have even done the Benny Hill kiting around trying to get FD off, but it's not a short cast.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by sammoHung [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have died on my 60 necro with AC build to a hasted, torched level 44 pet. It's uncommon but not rare. Sometimes you just get chain interrupted and can't get a single cast off. It's extremely frustrating to watch a mob chew through 2300 HP while every single cast attempt gets interrupted. Have even done the Benny Hill kiting around trying to get FD off, but it's not a short cast.

Instacast mallets were godmode for making petbreaks easier to channel.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by sammoHung [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have died on my 60 necro with AC build to a hasted, torched level 44 pet. It's uncommon but not rare. Sometimes you just get chain interrupted and can't get a single cast off. It's extremely frustrating to watch a mob chew through 2300 HP while every single cast attempt gets interrupted. Have even done the Benny Hill kiting around trying to get FD off, but it's not a short cast.

In classic EverQuest (ie. what this place is trying to recreate) charmers died uncommonly (if not commonly) from un-torched, un-hasted pets. The idea of giving a charmed pet a weapon and haste would have been crazy to the vast majority of charmers, because (just like you) they didn't want to die.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If anyone doubts that this thread should exist, just use Dolalin's amazing classic evidence search tool, https://search.eqarchives.org to search for yourself.

If anyone can present evidence that classic charmers were regularly and safely using haste and/or any weapon (I'm not sure the torch trick was universally known back then) then I will buy them beer IRL ... or at least Venmo the money for one.

[Jimjam]

I’m not convinced the torch trick was even a thing back then. How NPCs equipped weapons was very different. I can’t be the only one that remembers guards would often display a two hander and a shortsword in secondary?

[Rygar]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’m not convinced the torch trick was even a thing back then. How NPCs equipped weapons was very different. I can’t be the only one that remembers guards would often display a two hander and a shortsword in secondary?

I remember reading that sneaking behind Raster spawn and handing him a mino horn actually disabled his dual wield, but that was a live comment imported to wiki at the time. It didn't work on P99.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

IÂ’m not convinced the torch trick was even a thing back then. How NPCs equipped weapons was very different. I canÂ’t be the only one that remembers guards would often display a two hander and a shortsword in secondary?

I handed mobs shields many times for funzies (can't do that to uncharmed mobs on P99 either, but in original EQ you could) and it sure as heck didn't make them dual wield. Ultimately not too big a deal since giving stuff two weapons always worked...more of a visual irritant. Proof would be welcome if someone can find it, but player power is the same in the end either way.

Don't forget that channeling changes should *not* make it impossible to cast through multiple hits, just less consistent than it is today on P99. If it became totally impossible (or even excessively improbable) to cast through successive hits that'd be an indicator of a problem. People could and did channel at times through two-three-four-ten-etc hits. It mattered with things like charm pets because a solo enchanter might not live long enough to channel through several interrupts, not because he couldn't eventually get a cast off provided he stayed alive. And no, enchanters arming/hasting their charm pets was mostly a thing done (infrequently!) as a sort of joke, expecting to eventually have bad results. Either the ench eventually got flattened, or he'd get healed then the healer has said hasted/charmed pet hitting her in the face. Either way it was widely considered more trouble than it was worth and few groups tried it, certainly not regularly.

Oh and don't even get me started on the mez spells not memblurring every other cast or so the way the level 4 mez does on P99. If they blurred it was exceedingly rare. Enchanters weren't memblurring themselves out of (the very high) aggro they generated from CC'ing....pre-taunting mezzed mobs or ench trying to root them before break or the ench getting beat up was very much a thing, too. P99 enchanters have long benefitted from multiple issues that turn them into a sort of superhero parody of what they were.

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by azxten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

NOTE: Dolalin mentioned he has provided the LUA code from EQEmu dev who decompiled the classic client. I have this as well but won't post it since he probably wanted it kept private for a reason and will leave that up to him to repost if needed.

Maybe I'm not following the discussion well enough? Why is client side code relevant when the channel check was entirely server-side?

From what I can gather, they found some server-side code artifacts in the client with the magic numbers, but they seem to be contradicted by matching-era dev posts?

Obviously the original EMU code is arbitrary so I don't imagine there's a good argument against changing it, but it seems a little disingenuous to suggest a client decompile is ground truth for server code. It's also very confusing that there are privacy concerns regarding the decompile. If I'm just too naive to recognize the legal euphemism for server code I apologize.